Every year I buy a copy of "The Best American Short Stories." This year it was edited by Stephen King and I thought I was in for a real treat. Nothing of the kind. You read these stories, the best of the best, and can feel the careful choice over each word. This is intrusive, I should be drawn into the story - unaware of word choice. The mecanics are all there - executed with perfection. The point/theme seems often to be microscopic if it is there at all. Sad to say it seems most of these tales are short on story - short on imagination.

There's always an interesting story and then one bizarre "SK element".

About short stories... yeah, there was another thread on this not too long ago. I've recently come to the conclusion that I don't really get short stories, which is why I seldom read them. They seem to either have some sort of agenda, or they are a "slice of life" sort of deal. I suppose with that short a form, it's difficult not to feel and hear the author, more than the story. At the end of it, I'm left thinking, Oh, wasn't that clever, or, That's kind of neat, (alternately, it's more like, Huh??). With a good book, I am floored. It's a life changing experience, and the characters stay with me, as if they are old friends. I'm more interested in investing the time for that sort of reward, than to spend 20 mins reading a decent story.

quote:

---

The problem -- as I see it -- is what the editors keep choosing.

---

I absolutely agree! I do not think that the short story is dying because people wouldn't read short stories.

It is dying because people will not read the stories that the EDITORS choose. There was a thread on this subject not long ago regarding comments in a blog by one of the readers of a major SF/F pub that commented that they were "educating" the public to read literary fantasy.

Well, just thanks. But NO thanks. I took lit in college because I have a couple of degrees in it, thank you. I want GOOD stories from an editor not an attempt to change the genre.

SF&F and Asimov and all of the spec pubs are losing readers in droves not because no one would read them if they had GOOD stories in them. They are losing readers because the stories the editors choose SUCK. (Edit: Well, ok, I've seen a few good stories but most of them do anyway.)

I demand short stories with little things like a plot, a beginning, a middle and an end, a POINT, and characters I can manage to care about. Many, many of the editors think this is WAY too pedestrian.

End of rant...

quote:

---

a couple months of reading, I finally finished this book. At almost 800 pages, it was a book that attracted my eye, I usually prefer longer books. But this one was an especial challenge. The novel takes place in the early 1800's and is written in that style, with lengthy descriptions and frequently misspelled words (like using chuse for choose).

The storyline is compelling, though. I just think that if the book was a third the size, the pacing would have been much better.

To me, it seemed Ms Clarke was trying more to create a history of England, weaving in a rich and lengthy magical history with the realistic events of the period, including the wars against Napoleon. And if Clarke wanted to write a history book with an alternate history of England, she did a great job (she even included lengthy footnotes, the only thing missing was a bibliography). But if she wanted to create a compelling narrative, a lot could have been cut.

For one, almost every character is described meticulously. This is good in that you feel like you really know the main characters. Its bad because she did this to minor characters who were only in one scene or that we may have only met in passing. This description extends to most of the setting as well. Every home, castle, library, forest, and moor is described in painstaking detail that is almost painful to read.

As I was getting to the end of the book, I started to think that maybe there'd be a great payoff at the end, something to make everything else worth it. Well, while the ending was decent and interesting, it wasn't the result I was hoping for. Like the rest of the book, it was slow and slightly disappointing.

But all of that is okay, because Clarke has reportedly signed a six, maybe even seven-figure movie deal. I'll be looking forward to the movie. I bet this book will translate well to the big screen.

---

But...(pause to grab two science fiction magazines)...

Two magazines picked at random:

Amazing, April 1958: One of Our Cities is Missing, The Space Breed, The Last Citizen, The Stars Fought Back, Venusian, Get Out!

Asimov's, December 2007: Galaxy Blues, All Seated on the Ground, The Lonesome Planet Traveler's Advisory, Strangers on a Bus, The Rules, Do (This).

Now, I don't doubt that the stories in Asimov's are infinitely better written than the stories in Amazing. But it is clear that the stories in Amazing were designed to entertain, while the stories in Asimov's were designed to be "lit'rery".

So, while I'm not as down on modern short stories as some of the posters here, I do think the editors tend to buy stories in which nothing much happens, just as poetry editors tend to buy poems that don't rhyme, and art galleries tend to display paintings that aren't pictures.

I do think some of the SF magazines have been kinda seduced by the literary models in the mainstream. An over-reliance on mainstream literary techniques tends to ruin whatever charm the SF content might have had. And, when you get right down to it, why emulate the writers of a field who hold the best work of this field in contempt?

After I submitted the review, I felt mean. Were the stories really that bad? Well, having re-read them, I can confirm that they were. And now, with this thread, I don't feel so bad for panning an entire issue of Asimov's.

The shorts that you see now I lable "MFA" stories (editing out the tripe or harsher words I tend to stick in WITH the MFA). I think that someone should stomp on the people who teach this...

I have, not once, been able to find a science fiction short story magazine anywhere in my area, no matter where or when I was living there. Not in Massachusetts, not in New Mexico, not in Pennsylvania or New Jersey or Ohio or Connecticut. I can never find a single copy of Asimov's, Analog, or SF&F on a shelf. The only way I can get at them seems to be to go online and subscribe.

Perhaps the problem isn't a vanishing market, but rather limited accessibility? Granted I wasn't around for the hey-day of science fiction magazines and can only imagine what it was like, based on what I've read and heard, but I think the number one problem is that the big-name rags just aren't falling into the general public's hands.

Consider the New Yorker: you can pick that up at any magazine rack in almost any bookstore, or even from the kiosk down the street. But Asimov's? My dad seems able to get them, but he has yet to share the secret with me.

Of course, the argument could be made that these magazines don't generate the appropriate amount of interest to warrant being laid out on the shelves, but to me the reason they don't is because they're not out there. Weren't these things hot items in the 1950s? SF rags were a dime a dozen back then (or so I'm told). Nowadays we're just experiencing a breakdown in marketing as the image of the sci-fi/fantasy writer hermit gets thrown around.

Then, in the Oct/Nov issue, they republished "Nightfall", presumably as part of their 30th anniversary celebrations.